You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Eugine_Nier comments on [link] Scott Aaronson on free will - Less Wrong Discussion

20 Post author: DanielVarga 10 June 2013 11:24PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (109)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 13 June 2013 12:32:22AM 0 points [-]

What? Just because predicting human behaviour one minute before it's happening with 99% accuracy is more impressive, it doesn't mean that it involves any kind of different process than predicting human behaviour 5 seconds before with 60% accurateness. Admittedly, it might imply different kind, maybe even unachievable or uncomputable kind of process, but it also may be just a matter of better probes/more computational power.

So would you have been wiling to draw the same conclusion from an experiment that predicted the button pushing 1 second before with 99.99999% probability by scanning the neurons in the arm?

Comment author: MrMind 13 June 2013 09:03:07AM *  -1 points [-]

As I said in another comment: no, because that doesn't add information, since pushing the button = neurons in the arm firing. The threshold is when the elaboration leaves the brain.